Yes, but how realistic is it that you could have a nation powerful enough to back yet another reserve currency? Economic realities aside, I think the political realities also play a role in determining that.

I don't disagree with your comment -- but if you notice, the scale was provided by Wolfram, not me. Personally, I'd have included a finer-grained category with the worst offender(s) marked in deep red, and the good guys in green, with perhaps even call outs.

While the Times article was certainly interesting and entertaining, it came across as a populist rant against Goldman. Right from the title (which sounded like a quote taken out of context), the author set a tone that was meant to portray Goldman in a bad light. I mean, how many times does he really need to talk about how much partners make?

Sad. If you're trying to stem up popular support, at the very least try to be objective in your analysis.

Most people who bought houses in that period did so because of the bubble, immaterial of whether or not they could truly afford it.

If you bought a house you could afford, and its value went down, your loss is nominal. You wouldn't really be "suffering" if you were able to afford it. Disappointed or upset even that the prices went down -- but in no way suffering.

On the other hand, if you took out loans beyond your means, or bought a house because you thought the prices would always go up, tough luck. Those are the clowns, not me.